BP released the 68th annual edition of theBP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP Stats Review), a comprehensive collection and analysis of global energy data. This year’s edition highlights the growing divergence between demands for action on climate change and the actual pace of progress on reducing carbon emissions.

The longer carbon emissions continue to rise, the harder and more costly will be the necessary eventual adjustment to net-zero carbon emissions. As I have said before, this is not a race to renewables, but a race to reduce carbon emissions across many fronts.

—Bob Dudley, group chief executive

Key findings from the BP Stats Review 2019 include:

Global energy demand grew by 2.9% and carbon emissions grew by 2.0% in 2018, faster than at any time since 2010-11.

Natural gas consumption and production was up over 5%, one of the strongest rates of growth for both demand and output for over 30 years.

Renewables grew by 14.5%, nearing their record-breaking increase in 2017, but this still accounted for only around a third of the increase in total power generation.

Coal consumption (+1.4%) and production (+4.3%) increased for the second year in a row in 2018, following three years of decline (2014-16). Coal still accounted for the largest share of power generation at 38%.

The United States recorded the largest-ever annual production increases by any country for both oil and natural gas, the vast majority of increases coming from onshore shale plays.

Cobalt and Lithium production rose by 13.9% and 17.6% respectively, both well in excess of their 10-year average growth rates.

Cobalt prices rose 30% to their highest levels since 2008, while Lithium carbonate prices increased by 21% to new highs.

There is a growing mismatch between societal demands for action on climate change and the actual pace of progress, with energy demand and carbon emissions growing at their fastest rate for years. The world is on an unsustainable path.

I think it should be celebrated that poverty has been reduced worldwide so that more people can have access to electricity and transportation.
And at least the carbon intensity of producing energy is being reduced.

The leading edge EPR reactor in France has cost €10.9 billion so far and rising for a 1.65 GW plant.

CO2 heat pumps running from the air, not the ground, have a CoP of 4 under worst case conditions, up to 8 in better conditions. 77% of domestic energy use in France is on space heating and water heating and 31% of the TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION in Europe is for the same – domestic space heating and hot water. Every single CO2 heat pump installed will cut that by 75% minimum.

If they had given away for free 2 million heat pumps for that €11 billion, 10% of French households, cutting their water and heating energy use by a factor of 4 they could have shut down 6 of the existing 900 MWe nuclear reactors – superfluous to requirements, instead of wasting it on building yet another NPP.

If every household in Europe had a CoP 4 heat pump, Europe’s Total Energy Consumption - Total – would be reduced by 23%. A Quarter.

What makes more sense – burning more coal and gas and generating more nuclear waste, the most toxic substances ever known when every dollar and euro spent could instead cut energy consumption by a factor of 4 to 8?

If they had given away for free 2 million heat pumps for that €11 billion, 10% of French households... they could have shut down 6 of the existing 900 MWe nuclear reactors

Or they could have kept those plants running and powered 7.2 million Tesla-class EVs for roughly 100 km/day each. Had those vehicles been ICEVs burning 5 litre/100 km average they would burn 36 million litres/day and emit about 88,000 tons/day of CO2, about 32 million tons/year. That's the sort of crap Greens do: sacrifice the climate so they can feel sanctimonious about getting rid of nuclear power.

What makes more sense – burning more coal and gas and generating more nuclear waste, the most toxic substances ever known

It doesn't matter how toxic something is if nobody is ever exposed to it. Wind turbines are largely non-toxic, though the resins for the glass-fiber blades may break down into nasty stuff someday. But it isn't the toxicity that kills raptors and bats, it's blunt impact and pressure-drop lung trauma.

every dollar and euro spent could instead cut energy consumption by a factor of 4 to 8?

You're failing to figure the losses in the generating plant; if you're burning natural gas your efficiency peaks out at maybe 56% HHV, 40-odd percent if you're burning lignite like the "Green" Germans do. But even if space heat was your only energy requirement (hah!), you're not going to get down to the level of emissions that nuclear achieves by default.